Advertisement

Mechanistic study of drag reduction in turbulent pipeline flow over anionic polymer and surfactant mixtures

  • Yanlin Chai
  • Xianwen Li
  • Jiafeng Geng
  • Jiaxin Pan
  • Yalong Huang
  • Dengwei JingEmail author
Original Contribution
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

The mixed aqueous solutions of anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate with polymer polyacrylamide of various kinds, i.e., cationic, anionic, nonionic, and zwitterion, were firstly tested to study their synergistic effect on drag reduction performance. The optimal combination of sodium dodecyl sulfate with anionic polyacrylamide was confirmed due to their strong hydrophobic interaction and electrostatic repulsion caused by the same charge. The surface tension, conductivity, and viscosity of pure surfactant solution and mixed solutions at different surfactant concentrations with anionic polymer of certain concentration were tested, and their drag reduction behavior in pipe flow was also investigated experimentally. It turns out that drag reduction performance acquired from the combination of anionic surfactant and anionic polyacrylamide is better than either of the single additive, especially under high shear rate. For the mixtures, the degree of drag reduction is strongly dependent on the concentration of SDS and more pronounced in the high Reynolds number range. The best drag reduction performance is obtained for the SDS concentration around the polymer saturation point. Our work should be of value for the drag reduction in the application such as shale gas fracturing and various fluid transports.

Keywords

Drag reduction Anionic surfactant Anionic polymer Surface tension Conductivity Viscosity 

Notes

Funding information

This study was financial supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51776165, 51888103) and Shanxi Science & Technology Co-ordination & Innovation Project (Contract No. 2017ZDXM-GY-067). This work was also supported by the China Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Virk PS (1975) Drag reduction fundamentals. AICHE J 21(4):625–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lumley JL Drag reduction in turbulent flow by polymer additives. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 7.1(2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ohlendorf D, Interthal W, Hoffmann H (1986) Surfactant systems for drag reduction: physico-chemical properties and rheological behaviour. Rheol Acta 25(5):468–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lucas EF, Mansur CRE, Spinelli L, Queirós YGC (2009) Polymer science applied to petroleum production. Pure Appl Chem 81(3):473–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoon H, Sik HHC (2006) Drag reduction in turbulent channel flow with periodically arrayed heating and cooling strips. Phys Fluids 18(2):1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harwigsson I, Hellsten M (1996) Environmentally acceptable drag-reducing surfactants for district heating and cooling. J Am Oil Chem Soc 73(7):921–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obry M (1980) Polymer drag reduction in large pipes and sewers: results of recent field trials. J Rheol 24(5):667–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Figueredo RCR, Sabadini E (2003) Firefighting foam stability: the effect of the drag reducer poly (ethylene) oxide. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 215 1:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abubakar A (2014) Roles of drag reducing polymers in single- and multi-phase flows. Chem Eng Res Des 92(11):2153–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rouse PE, Sittel K (1953) Viscoelastic properties of dilute polymer solutions. J Appl Phys 24(6):690–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoshizaki H (1989) Ultrasonic viscoelasticity and excess absorption in polymer solution. Polym J 21(11):905–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jinjia W, Chonghai H, Na XU (2016) Research progress concerning turbulent drag reduction of surfactant solution. Chem Ind & Eng Pro (China)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mohsenipour AA, Pal R, Prajapati K (2013) Effect of cationic surfactant addition on the drag reduction behaviour of anionic polymer solutions. Can J Chem Eng 91(1):181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dongjie L et al (2018) Molecular dynamics simulation of self-assembly and viscosity behavior of PAM and CTAC in salt-added solutions. J Mol Liq 268:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohsenipour A, Asghar R (2013) Drag reduction in turbulent pipeline flow of mixed nonionic polymer and cationic surfactant systems. Can J Chem Eng 91(1):190–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anthony O, Zana R (1996) Interactions between water-soluble polymers and surfactants: effect of the polymer hydrophobicity. 1. Hydrophilic polyelectrolytes. Langmuir. 12(8):1967–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thuresson K (1995) Effect of surfactant on structural and thermodynamic properties of aqueous solutions of hydrophobically modified ethyl (hydroxyethyl) cellulose. Langmuir 11(10):3730–3736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deo P et al (2007) Interactions of a hydrophobically modified polymer with oppositely charged surfactants. Langmuir. 23(11):5906–5913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deo P (2003) Interactions of hydrophobically modified polyelectrolytes with surfactants of the same charge. Langmuir. 19(26):10747–10752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parathakkatt S, George J, Sankarakutty SM, Sreejith L (2009) Polymer induced struc-tures in cetylpyridinium chloride–octanol micellar system. J Polym Res 16(5):577–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu D, Wang Q, Wei J (2018) Experimental study on drag reduction performance of mixed polymer and surfactant solutions. Chem Eng Res DesGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malcher T, Gzylmalcher B (2012) Influence of polymer-surfactant aggregates on fluid flow. Bioelectrochemistry 87 10:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohsenipour AA, Pal R (2013) The role of surfactants in mechanical degradation of drag-reducing polymers. Bioelectrochemistry 52(3):1291–1302Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mohsenipour AA, Pal R (2013) Synergistic effects of anionic surfactant and nonionic polymer additives on drag reduction. Chem Eng Commun 200(7):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nagarajan R (1980) Thermodtnamics of surfactant-polymer interactions in dilute aqueous solutions. Chem Phys Lett 76(2):282–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruckenstein E, Huber G, Hoffmann H (1987) Surfactant aggregation in the presence of polymers. Langmuir. 3(3):382–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Monteux C (2007) Determining the mechanical response of particle-laden fluid interfaces using surface pressure isotherms and bulk pressure measurements of droplets. Phys Chem Chem Phys 9(48):6344–6350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goddard ED (2002) Polymer/surfactant interaction: interfacial aspects. J Colloid Interface Sci 256(1):228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    YU B (2004) Numerical and experimental investigation of turbulent characteristics in a drag-reducing flow with surfactant additives. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 25(6):961–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Biggs S, Selb J, Candau F (1992) Effect of surfactant on the solution properties of hydrophobically modified polyacrylamide. Langmuir. 8(3):838–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li FC (2008) Experimental study of drag-reduction mechanism for a dilute surfactant solution flow. Int J Heat Mass Tranf 51(3):835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lin Z (2016) Comparison of the effects of methyl- and chloro-substituted salicylate counterions on drag reduction and rheological behavior and micellar formation of a cationic surfactant. Rheol Acta 55(2):117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sher I, Hetsroni G (2008) A mechanistic model of turbulent drag reduction by additives. Chem Eng Sci 63(7):1771–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liberatore MW (2004) Turbulent drag reduction of polyacrylamide solutions: effect of degradation on molecular weight distribution. J Non-Newton Fluid 123(2–3):175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krstonošić V, Milanović M, Dokić L (2019) Application of different techniques in the determination of xanthan gum-SDS and xanthan gum-tween 80 interaction. Food Hydrocoll 87:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu Z-y (2017) Impact of the microstructure of polymer drag reducer on slick-water fracturing. Geofluids. 2017:1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering & International Research Center for Renewable EnergyXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Oil and Gas Technology Research Institute of Changqing Oilfield CompanyXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations